Thunderpipes:This text is now purple: Leeds: AurizenDarkstar: Thunderpipes: At least libs are staying true to form.

At least 70 Republican poll workers have been thrown out, sometimes physically from Pennsylvania polling stations by Democrats. Judge had to step in. This, this is what you guys are all about and it just sucks.

And you can show a link to this happening, outside of your fevered imagination?

It's not even uncommon for Philly. It was a problem in the last election, too.

Slavery was a problem in the South some time ago, guess they should have let is slide?

Point of order: While we can argue about whether they should have, it's worth noting that they, in fact, DID let is slide. Specifically to save the fledgling republic. And it worked. Also off the table was "What do we do with all the Indians?" Good thing, too, or we would all be speaking french now.

But that has nothing to do with anything, really. So I guess I'm wondering what the flying fark you think you're saying?

Leeds:BeesNuts: For not focusing on the economy, the current president sure did a bang up job of keeping the boat afloat on an anemic tide. Further, keeping with that analogy, 2% growth feels like a tide, whereas the 15-20% growth we see in bubble economies feels more like a tsunami. One of those tends to be moderately destructive. I know which I'd prefer.

You're content with 2% growth????????????

Is it really possible that you don't have any out of work friends and you evidently don't know anyone with kids who intend on entering the job market in the next decade.

Because we can't get back to full employment if we have people entering the job market at a faster pace than we create jobs. That's what this paltry 2% growth gives us.

You might want to do a little research before making a comment like that. Most economists see a rate of growth in the 2.5% - 3% range as being healthy. When it gets into higher numbers like 7% - 10%, it's definitely a boom, and that can be bad down the line.

So yeah, I agree with him that a rate of growth of 2% is a good thing for the country, but 3% would be better.

BeesNuts:Thunderpipes: This text is now purple: Leeds: AurizenDarkstar: Thunderpipes: At least libs are staying true to form.

At least 70 Republican poll workers have been thrown out, sometimes physically from Pennsylvania polling stations by Democrats. Judge had to step in. This, this is what you guys are all about and it just sucks.

And you can show a link to this happening, outside of your fevered imagination?

It's not even uncommon for Philly. It was a problem in the last election, too.

Slavery was a problem in the South some time ago, guess they should have let is slide?

Point of order: While we can argue about whether they should have, it's worth noting that they, in fact, DID let is slide. Specifically to save the fledgling republic. And it worked. Also off the table was "What do we do with all the Indians?" Good thing, too, or we would all be speaking french now.

But that has nothing to do with anything, really. So I guess I'm wondering what the flying fark you think you're saying?

It's just the first of many election day epiphany-implosions.

Regardless of who wins, if we can stop pandering to voters and start solving problems, we should be in great shape as a country. Let's hope that whoever wins can make some progress with that in the next four years.

Thunderpipes:Mrtraveler01: Thunderpipes: Pretty stupid, since even taxing the crap out of the wealthy will barely make a dent, and will stall growth further.

So does cutting funding to NPR/PBS and Planned Parenthood. But that doesn't stop the GOP from harping on about it acting like it would make a big difference in the budget.

So you can either admit that both things make very little impact on the budget or admit that both things will help pay off the deficit/debt one step at a time.

Anything else makes you look like a dishonest partisan shill.

To solve this requires cuts all over the place, those are just two small examples. The big thing is SS, medicare reform, reduce military spending, and encourage growth. Remember, we have Obamacare looming in 2014 and it so far keeps costing more and making business even more wary.

Bottom line is, punishing people for hard work and success, while rewarding lazy people and government workers/unions does not make the average person want to bust their ass. Why work hard, when you don't have to?

Obama has no plan whatsoever, but to tax the rich, make success an evil word. CBO projections are just dismal and get worse each year. Compounding interest cannot be wished away by starry eyes kids. What do we do in a decade when interest payment on the debt alone are in the 1 trillion dollar range? Tax the rich?

Who do you think these "lazy" people are? The fact is, if you want to separate out the takers from the makers in America, you are talking about 2 groups: the elderly and members of our armed forces. I wouldn't call either of those groups "lazy".

Look, our economy tanked 4 years ago for two reasons: one, we deregulated our financial industries and allowed them to essentially gamble, knowing if they lost the taxpayer would pick up the check. Two, we took on a massive amount of debt in order to pass a huge regressive tax cut that created zero jobs, and generated zero growth. Think about that for a minute: we literally borrowed money from the Chinese and from our children in order to give the wealthy a massive handout, and in return they tanked the economy and pushed unemployment up to 9%.

Mitt Romney wants to do both of these again, deregulate and cut taxes. That's the choice today. Do we want the policies that created the slow growth and modest employment gains of the last 4 years, or the policies that created the recession?

At least 70 Republican poll workers have been thrown out, sometimes physically from Pennsylvania polling stations by Democrats. Judge had to step in. This, this is what you guys are all about and it just sucks.

And you can show a link to this happening, outside of your fevered imagination?

Google it, several news sites have it up. Black Panthers are back too.

The question that nobody seemed to ask was "why were they thrown out?"

If they were electioneering and not poll watching, that's a no no.

As for the BPP, shall I call you a hypocrite for wanting to throw out poll watchers you disagree with? Or should I assume you are just a regular old racist who thinks "being black" is an intimidation tactic?

According to CNN just now, "all reports" so far say the only reason was that he was a black man and working for the GOP as a poll inspector. No campaigning, a certified inspector. Shout downs of Uncle Tom and violence have ensued. A judge ordered that all 12 wards that removed the GOP inspectors be reinstated and dispatched deputies at each site to insure compliance.

No harm I can see to the process in general, in fact the Black Panthers just caused panic and delay in areas that Obama should win 95% of the vote - so kind of dumb. Maybe they should drive out to the suburbs next time and cause this drama.

It seems you are supporting the removal of polling place inspectors? Can you elaborate? Why do you think any of this is okay?

Thunderpipes:crazyeddie: Thunderpipes: So what will the liberal argument be in 2016 when the debt is 20-22 trillion? Can't wait to see that...

So no response to hugram's post, then? No rejoinder for the wall of facts that contradicts you at every turn? Ok then. If you can't play by the rules of civil and moral discourse, where each side actually presents evidence and reasons for believing things, then you can be dismissed for what we all know you are.

Either address the facts, or keep snivelling. The choice is yours. Do you have the backbone to do the right thing?

Nobody made any logical argument whatsoever, when they do, I respond.

Here is what you quoted... "math does not lie. In no way can anything about the economy be called good"...

I then posted a whole bunch of stuff that no one with a straight face can say they are not good... Car sales are up... home prices are up... stock markets are up... unemployment rate trending down... well, you can go back to look at them again.

Anyway, if you still feel all that data I posted is still not good... and you want to blame the bad situation on the Gov, and more specifically on Obama for it, why don't you first start with congress... and to be specific, the GOP members of congress.

US presidents are not dictators. They do not create and pass laws all by themselves. Congress creates laws, and then they vote on them. If a bill is passed via the voting process, it is here that the President only signs them into law. Since the GOP congress blocked every bills the Dems tried to pass, including ideas they used to championed, then go ahead and blame them.

Including on the many links I provided to you, one was a 10% tax cut for companies that hire someone new. The GOP congress blocked that bill. Since when are they against a tax cut?

hugram:Thunderpipes: crazyeddie: Thunderpipes: So what will the liberal argument be in 2016 when the debt is 20-22 trillion? Can't wait to see that...

So no response to hugram's post, then? No rejoinder for the wall of facts that contradicts you at every turn? Ok then. If you can't play by the rules of civil and moral discourse, where each side actually presents evidence and reasons for believing things, then you can be dismissed for what we all know you are.

Either address the facts, or keep snivelling. The choice is yours. Do you have the backbone to do the right thing?

Nobody made any logical argument whatsoever, when they do, I respond.

Here is what you quoted... "math does not lie. In no way can anything about the economy be called good"...

I then posted a whole bunch of stuff that no one with a straight face can say they are not good... Car sales are up... home prices are up... stock markets are up... unemployment rate trending down... well, you can go back to look at them again.

Anyway, if you still feel all that data I posted is still not good... and you want to blame the bad situation on the Gov, and more specifically on Obama for it, why don't you first start with congress... and to be specific, the GOP members of congress.

US presidents are not dictators. They do not create and pass laws all by themselves. Congress creates laws, and then they vote on them. If a bill is passed via the voting process, it is here that the President only signs them into law. Since the GOP congress blocked every bills the Dems tried to pass, including ideas they used to championed, then go ahead and blame them.

Including on the many links I provided to you, one was a 10% tax cut for companies that hire someone new. The GOP congress blocked that bill. Since when are they against a tax cut?

Unemployment ticked back up to 7.9%. Wow, that is awesome. Oh, that includes the fact that 4-5% of the entire workforce dropped out. Home prices and the stock market are very slowly rising after a stark recession? Oh boy howdy, Obama is a Savior! Could have elected a monkey and done as well. You are here arguing that 7.9% unemployment, exploding deficit, drastically shrunk workforce is okay because home prices and the stock market have rebounded. Wow.

Bambam had two years to do anything he wanted, he passed a ridiculous health care law that half the country doesn't want and will cost trillions. That is all he has done, that and campaign. Have the Dems bothered to passa budget lately?

Sucky thing is, 7% unemployment and trillion dollar deficits, 2% growth is the new America under Democrat rule, and you guys love it. I have a one year old, he will have to contend with 30-40 trillion dollars of US debt by the time he is in college.

Just too many lazy, stupid young people around, and they breed much faster than working people. Democrats give money to people in exchange for votes, get elected, and the cycle repeats. We are Greece within a decade, but much more heavily armed.

Y9u know the Dems have it in the bag when Tunderpipes chimes in for thm.

Leeds:BeesNuts: For not focusing on the economy, the current president sure did a bang up job of keeping the boat afloat on an anemic tide. Further, keeping with that analogy, 2% growth feels like a tide, whereas the 15-20% growth we see in bubble economies feels more like a tsunami. One of those tends to be moderately destructive. I know which I'd prefer.

You're content with 2% growth????????????

Is it really possible that you don't have any out of work friends and you evidently don't know anyone with kids who intend on entering the job market in the next decade.

Because we can't get back to full employment if we have people entering the job market at a faster pace than we create jobs. That's what this paltry 2% growth gives us.

No one is content with 2% growth. But, at present, you are basically saying that you would prefer recession.

If Romney had said he would do anything differently from what Bush did economically, you would have a valid argument, but his entire platform was tax cuts, deregulation, privatization, and a general return to regressive governance. That's what caused the recession in the first place! You bet I'll take 2% growth over that. I'll take the economic conditions of 2012 over those of 2008 any day of the week.

Actually, other than the very unwarranted physical confrontation, this seems "normal" for Philly, read this...

Despite the high number of officials who were allegedly booted, the dispute itself is not uncommon for Philadelphia. Fred Voigt, legal counsel for the city commissioners, said these kinds of face-offs happen "with regularity" in the City of Brotherly Love.

"It happens all the time," Voigt said. He said court-appointed Republican officials typically show up on Election Day and end up squaring off against stand-in officials at the polling sites filling in the open seats. Part of the problem, he said, is that the Republican inspectors are appointed on relatively short notice, leading to a string of confrontations on Election Day.

Thunderpipes:Unemployment ticked back up to 7.9%. Wow, that is awesome. Oh, that includes the fact that 4-5% of the entire workforce dropped out. Home prices and the stock market are very slowly rising after a stark recession? Oh boy howdy, Obama is a Savior! Could have elected a monkey and done as well. You are here arguing that 7.9% unemployment, exploding deficit, drastically shrunk workforce is okay because home prices and the stock market have rebounded. Wow.

Bambam had two years to do anything he wanted, he passed a ridiculous health care law that half the country doesn't want and will cost trillions. That is all he has done, that and campaign. Have the Dems bothered to passa budget lately?

You seem to be ignoring the fact that the alternative isn't any better and wants to increase defense spending and tax cuts which will result in a much bigger deficit.

The deficit has only gone down since the first year because of a one time charge called the stimulus plan.

I don't mean to be condescending, but you are all over the place with your comments- almost like you didn't understand my post at all.

We were speaking of deficits. Your statements about recouping long term investments is interesting, but a complete red herring. Money in and money out - that's how you determine if you have a deficit or a surplus. The integral of that answer is called the national debt. These numbers have nothing to do with whether or not the deficit is "good" because it was part of an investment in infrastructure or "bad" because it's throwing money at people to discourage them from working. debt is debt.

You aren't by any chance a Democrat, are you?

Ok, perhaps I didn't understand your post. Let me be more clear as to what I thought you meant:

1) You stated "the deficit has only gone down since the first year because of a one time charge called the stimulus plan. If you look at the budgets like you look at a company's prospectus and you remove the non-recurring one time charge that year, your claim that the deficit has been shrinking can be shown to be false.

2) The deficit is revenue - expenditures, when revenue exceeds expenditures, and you've got to borrow the rest.

3) You're stating that it only got smaller because of the one time charge of the stimulus. For your argument to be true, the one-time charge would have to be additional revenue. But the stimulus was more expenditures, not more revenue. It's not a windfall.

4) Companies often don't count one-time charges because it's not recurring, true. But that's almost always because it makes their books look worse, not better. This is the counter argument.

5) In trying to understand what you were saying -- that the stimulus is a one-time charge that makes the books look BETTER, not worse, I tried to understand the statement from the point of view that it had somehow increased revenues in a non-recurring fashion. Thus the statement about increasing tax revenue, since that's the only thing I could guess that you meant.

Now if all that is wrong, please help me understand what you mean when you say that the stimulus, as a non-recurring expenditure, is somehow making the deficit appear smaller than it really is. I'd appreciate it if you did so without trying to label me as a Democrat or similar, since that 1) is false, and 2) is in no way pertinent to the discussion.

Mr. Obama could secure the Electoral College by winning Wisconsin, Nevada and Pennsylvania, along with Ohio.

I think it's very presumptious to predict some of these states given the extremely tight polling especially OH. Anyone who would even try to predict OH is a kook. I see NV possibly going to Obama but FL most likely will go to Romney.PA is also a toss up.VA is leaning slightly Romney. If Romney loses VA and OH even if he wins Fl I think it's pretty much game over. OTOH If Obama loses both states he will also be in big trouble especially if CO goes to Romney which at this point is quite likely.

The deficit has only gone down since the first year because of a one time charge called the stimulus plan.

I don't mean to be condescending, but you are all over the place with your comments- almost like you didn't understand my post at all.

We were speaking of deficits. Your statements about recouping long term investments is interesting, but a complete red herring. Money in and money out - that's how you determine if you have a deficit or a surplus. The integral of that answer is called the national debt. These numbers have nothing to do with whether or not the deficit is "good" because it was part of an investment in infrastructure or "bad" because it's throwing money at people to discourage them from working. debt is debt.

You aren't by any chance a Democrat, are you?Ok, perhaps I didn't understand your post. Let me be more clear as to what I thought you meant:

1) You stated "the deficit has only gone down since the first year because of a one time charge called the stimulus plan. If you look at the budgets like you look at a company's prospectus and you remove the non-recurring one time charge that year, your claim that the deficit has been shrinking can be shown to be false.

2) The deficit is revenue - expenditures, when revenue exceeds expenditures, and you've got to borrow the rest.

3) You're stating that it only got smaller because of the one time charge of the stimulus. For your argument to be true, the one-time charge would have to be additional revenue. But the stimulus was more expenditures, not more revenue. It's not a windfall.

4) Companies often don't count one-time charges because it's not recurring, true. But that's almost always because it makes their books look worse, not better. This is the counter argument.

5) In trying to understand what you were saying -- that the stimulus is a one-time charge that makes the books look BETTER, not worse, I tried to understand the statement from the point of view that it had somehow increased revenues in a non-recurring fashion. Thus the statement about increasing tax revenue, since that's the only thing I could guess that you meant.

Now if all that is wrong, please help me understand what you mean when you say that the stimulus, as a non-recurring expenditure, is somehow making the deficit appear smaller than it really is. I'd appreciate it if you did so without trying to label me as a Democrat or similar, since that 1) is false, and 2) is in no way pertinent to the discussion.

Thunderpipes:Just wish even once, you liberals and your Messiah would explain how exploding the national debt and discouraging success leads us to long term, or even short term economic prosperity. Even the CBO has a damned gloomy forecast for the country.

You literally don't care about the future. At the end of his second term, Obama will have added more debt to the country than all Presidents in history that came before him, combined. And once again, you guys are all for that. It is not even a defensible position, no wonder you avoid talking about it.

face it.. you are voting Romney because you hate Obama. Let go of your hate. Let your anger flow through you....just get it off your chest.. you hate Obama becvause he is black and you absolutely cannot stand the thought of a POTUS ever being a colored.

Thunderpipes:Unemployment ticked back up to 7.9%. Wow, that is awesome. Oh, that includes the fact that 4-5% of the entire workforce dropped out. Home prices and the stock market are very slowly rising after a stark recession? Oh boy howdy, Obama is a Savior! Could have elected a monkey and done as well. You are here arguing that 7.9% unemployment, exploding deficit, drastically shrunk workforce is okay because home prices and the stock market have rebounded. Wow.

Bambam had two years to do anything he wanted, he passed a ridiculous health care law that half the country doesn't want and will cost trillions. That is all he has done, that and campaign. Have the Dems bothered to passa budget lately?

Let's talk about the unemployment rate... It is at 7.9%. When Obama took office, it was at 7.8%.

Here is Bush's number... You can see that Obama has a better record on that.

Let's talk about your comment about the stock market slowly recovering... The fact that it doubled since March 9th of 2009 is no way considered a slow return.

Obama never had 2 years of Congress. Al Franken was sworn into the Senate on July 7, 2009... a full six months after winning the seat. Ted Kennedy died soon after (on August 25, 2009)... so yea, your two year majority comment is not valid.

The ridiculous healthcare law you are referring too was first championed by the extreme leftist group called The Heritage Foundation in 1994. The boy you voted for implemented it in Massachusetts when he was the governor. Do you think Romneycare sucks too?

You did not make any comments about the GOP congress blocking anything. At least they should own up to the blocking... instead of blocking everything and then blame Obama for not getting anything done. Why don't you own up to that?

SuperNinjaToad:Mr. Obama could secure the Electoral College by winning Wisconsin, Nevada and Pennsylvania, along with Ohio.

I think it's very presumptious to predict some of these states given the extremely tight polling especially OH. Anyone who would even try to predict OH is a kook. I see NV possibly going to Obama but FL most likely will go to Romney.PA is also a toss up.VA is leaning slightly Romney. If Romney loses VA and OH even if he wins Fl I think it's pretty much game over. OTOH If Obama loses both states he will also be in big trouble especially if CO goes to Romney which at this point is quite likely.

Virginia is one of the first States that will be called tonight. If Romney doesn't win it by a healthy margin, he's lost the election.

I say Obama takes Virginia by 2 points. Romney loses every other major battleground State.

Leeds:IT'S MAKING THE DEFICITS OF THE FOLLOWING YEARS APPEAR TO HAVE SHRUNK

How? Stimulus money was money out, not money in. How? How did it make the deficits look smaller? You've stated that it does, but you don't state HOW it made them look smaller, except by saying I'm a Democrat and an idiot.

JW:Leeds: IT'S MAKING THE DEFICITS OF THE FOLLOWING YEARS APPEAR TO HAVE SHRUNK

How? Stimulus money was money out, not money in. How? How did it make the deficits look smaller? You've stated that it does, but you don't state HOW it made them look smaller, except by saying I'm a Democrat and an idiot.

By farking comparison you god-damned idiot.

The initial poster said that obama's deficits have been getting smaller since the first year he took office.

I pointed out that the fact that the first year's deficit was super huge by comparison was entirely due to the stimulus package that was part of that year's deficit.

Then idiots started responding with posts that have no bearing on the thread. Farking idiots like you. Learn to farking read and you won't be called out for being an idiot.

mrshowrules:SuperNinjaToad: Mr. Obama could secure the Electoral College by winning Wisconsin, Nevada and Pennsylvania, along with Ohio.

I think it's very presumptious to predict some of these states given the extremely tight polling especially OH. Anyone who would even try to predict OH is a kook. I see NV possibly going to Obama but FL most likely will go to Romney.PA is also a toss up.VA is leaning slightly Romney. If Romney loses VA and OH even if he wins Fl I think it's pretty much game over. OTOH If Obama loses both states he will also be in big trouble especially if CO goes to Romney which at this point is quite likely.

Virginia is one of the first States that will be called tonight. If Romney doesn't win it by a healthy margin, he's lost the election.

I say Obama takes Virginia by 2 points. Romney loses every other major battleground State.

I think all Republicans AND Democrats see this as true.

1. Obama gets VA called early, then lights out. Romney is the scapegoat for years to come for bitter Republicans.

2. Romney has a 2-3% win in VA? Make some coffee, it'll be a long night with Obama eventually winning.

3. Romney wins VA outright (5%+)... oh snap. The polls WERE skewed - Obama is a one-term failure in the history books.

Purdue_Pete:mrshowrules: SuperNinjaToad: Mr. Obama could secure the Electoral College by winning Wisconsin, Nevada and Pennsylvania, along with Ohio.

I think it's very presumptious to predict some of these states given the extremely tight polling especially OH. Anyone who would even try to predict OH is a kook. I see NV possibly going to Obama but FL most likely will go to Romney.PA is also a toss up.VA is leaning slightly Romney. If Romney loses VA and OH even if he wins Fl I think it's pretty much game over. OTOH If Obama loses both states he will also be in big trouble especially if CO goes to Romney which at this point is quite likely.

Virginia is one of the first States that will be called tonight. If Romney doesn't win it by a healthy margin, he's lost the election.

I say Obama takes Virginia by 2 points. Romney loses every other major battleground State.

I think all Republicans AND Democrats see this as true.

1. Obama gets VA called early, then lights out. Romney is the scapegoat for years to come for bitter Republicans.

2. Romney has a 2-3% win in VA? Make some coffee, it'll be a long night with Obama eventually winning.

3. Romney wins VA outright (5%+)... oh snap. The polls WERE skewed - Obama is a one-term failure in the history books.

Pretty much. The Republican Virginia Governor was on CNN this morning. Let's just say his optimism for a Romney win was very muted.

Leeds:BeesNuts: For not focusing on the economy, the current president sure did a bang up job of keeping the boat afloat on an anemic tide. Further, keeping with that analogy, 2% growth feels like a tide, whereas the 15-20% growth we see in bubble economies feels more like a tsunami. One of those tends to be moderately destructive. I know which I'd prefer.

You're content with 2% growth????????????

Is it really possible that you don't have any out of work friends and you evidently don't know anyone with kids who intend on entering the job market in the next decade.

Because we can't get back to full employment if we have people entering the job market at a faster pace than we create jobs. That's what this paltry 2% growth gives us.

I'm more content with consistent, stable 2% growth (last year we actually saw more along the lines of 5% growth, but I thought you'd appreciate being a little conservative in my estimate. Guess not.) than I'd be with two years of 6% growth followed by a year of 3% decline. But 2% growth in a recession? YOU DAMN WELL BETTER BELIEVE I AM CONTENT WITH THAT.

People are NOT entering the workforce faster than they are leaving it. In fact, quite the opposite. Labor participation is falling because 4 years ago, a bunch of people were ready to retire, then they lost everything. The market has recovered, and so has their retirement nest-egg. So 4 years worth of people are confident enough to start leaving the workforce. This is a good thing. Not a bad thing. And it's precisely counter to what you believe to be the case.

Ok, Fark this. Go look up hugram's post. All the anecdotal "OMG I FEEL SO SAD" bullshiat doesn't disprove the data. If you wanna vote based on how Obama makes you feel or how Romney makes you feel, go ahead. But don't pretend to lean on numbers and facts when you flat out don't. Things are getting better. We can keep on that path, or we can do something else because you aren't satisfied with how fast things are getting better.

At least 70 Republican poll workers have been thrown out, sometimes physically from Pennsylvania polling stations by Democrats. Judge had to step in. This, this is what you guys are all about and it just sucks.

And you can show a link to this happening, outside of your fevered imagination?

Google it, several news sites have it up. Black Panthers are back too.

The question that nobody seemed to ask was "why were they thrown out?"

If they were electioneering and not poll watching, that's a no no.

As for the BPP, shall I call you a hypocrite for wanting to throw out poll watchers you disagree with? Or should I assume you are just a regular old racist who thinks "being black" is an intimidation tactic?

According to CNN just now, "all reports" so far say the only reason was that he was a black man and working for the GOP as a poll inspector. No campaigning, a certified inspector. Shout downs of Uncle Tom and violence have ensued. A judge ordered that all 12 wards that removed the GOP inspectors be reinstated and dispatched deputies at each site to insure compliance.

No harm I can see to the process in general, in fact the Black Panthers just caused panic and delay in areas that Obama should win 95% of the vote - so kind of dumb. Maybe they should drive out to the suburbs next time and cause this drama.

It seems you are supporting the removal of polling place inspectors? Can you elaborate? Why do you think any of this is okay?

Details are extraordinarily light on the poll inspector thing. Having voted in Philly, I find it hard to believe that the actual poll workers would kick somebody out for ... also being a poll worker. In fact, I *NEVER KNEW THE POLITICAL IDENTITY* of the poll inspectors I met (and spoke to on several occassions that year [it was my first election :D]) The story smells funny, and the fact that it's coming from the poison well of ThunderPipes makes it all the more questionable. But no, I do not support kicking out poll inspectors. I DO support letting poll watchers do *their* jobs as well, and for the most part, I trust poll watchers more than I trust Thunderpipes and WND so... that's where I'm at. Withholding judgment and not being especially outraged since it appears to already be undone, for better or worse.

Again, the only way you can think that a NBP is causing "panic and delay" by standing in proximity to a polling place is if you're a farking racist dickwaffle. Are you a racist dickwaffle? I'm withholding judgment on that too.

BeesNuts:Leeds: BeesNuts: For not focusing on the economy, the current president sure did a bang up job of keeping the boat afloat on an anemic tide. Further, keeping with that analogy, 2% growth feels like a tide, whereas the 15-20% growth we see in bubble economies feels more like a tsunami. One of those tends to be moderately destructive. I know which I'd prefer.

You're content with 2% growth????????????

Is it really possible that you don't have any out of work friends and you evidently don't know anyone with kids who intend on entering the job market in the next decade.

Because we can't get back to full employment if we have people entering the job market at a faster pace than we create jobs. That's what this paltry 2% growth gives us.

I'm more content with consistent, stable 2% growth (last year we actually saw more along the lines of 5% growth, but I thought you'd appreciate being a little conservative in my estimate. Guess not.) than I'd be with two years of 6% growth followed by a year of 3% decline. But 2% growth in a recession? YOU DAMN WELL BETTER BELIEVE I AM CONTENT WITH THAT.

People are NOT entering the workforce faster than they are leaving it. In fact, quite the opposite. Labor participation is falling because 4 years ago, a bunch of people were ready to retire, then they lost everything. The market has recovered, and so has their retirement nest-egg. So 4 years worth of people are confident enough to start leaving the workforce. This is a good thing. Not a bad thing. And it's precisely counter to what you believe to be the case.

Leeds:JW: Leeds: IT'S MAKING THE DEFICITS OF THE FOLLOWING YEARS APPEAR TO HAVE SHRUNK

How? Stimulus money was money out, not money in. How? How did it make the deficits look smaller? You've stated that it does, but you don't state HOW it made them look smaller, except by saying I'm a Democrat and an idiot.

By farking comparison you god-damned idiot.

The initial poster said that obama's deficits have been getting smaller since the first year he took office.

I pointed out that the fact that the first year's deficit was super huge by comparison was entirely due to the stimulus package that was part of that year's deficit.

Then idiots started responding with posts that have no bearing on the thread. Farking idiots like you. Learn to farking read and you won't be called out for being an idiot.

Oh, I see what you're saying now. Sorry, that was not clear, even though you thought it was. (What you had actually said was: "The deficit has only gone down since the first year because of a one time charge called the stimulus plan.", which I assumed to mean spread over multiple years, because, you know, that's what happened).

In which case, that's great! I'm sure you have data to back all this up, right? So either stimulus spending is falling on a year-by-year basis, but not by very much, or it fell dramatically but non-stimulus spending increased, or government revenues dropped precipitously, or some combination of these three. So you definitely have sources and data to back this up.

Because I sure haven't seen oodles of data claiming the opposite. Especially things like "Actual outlays for TARP in fiscal 2009 totaled $154 billion, according to the CBO. So the one-time bump in spending amounted to about 4 percent of fiscal 2009 spending."

Or alternatively you can bask in your anger and delusional self satisfaction that somehow you're an intelligent and informed individual, but the people you don't know, or who disagree with you, are not.

Leeds:BeesNuts: Leeds: BeesNuts: For not focusing on the economy, the current president sure did a bang up job of keeping the boat afloat on an anemic tide. Further, keeping with that analogy, 2% growth feels like a tide, whereas the 15-20% growth we see in bubble economies feels more like a tsunami. One of those tends to be moderately destructive. I know which I'd prefer.

You're content with 2% growth????????????

Is it really possible that you don't have any out of work friends and you evidently don't know anyone with kids who intend on entering the job market in the next decade.

Because we can't get back to full employment if we have people entering the job market at a faster pace than we create jobs. That's what this paltry 2% growth gives us.

I'm more content with consistent, stable 2% growth (last year we actually saw more along the lines of 5% growth, but I thought you'd appreciate being a little conservative in my estimate. Guess not.) than I'd be with two years of 6% growth followed by a year of 3% decline. But 2% growth in a recession? YOU DAMN WELL BETTER BELIEVE I AM CONTENT WITH THAT.

People are NOT entering the workforce faster than they are leaving it. In fact, quite the opposite. Labor participation is falling because 4 years ago, a bunch of people were ready to retire, then they lost everything. The market has recovered, and so has their retirement nest-egg. So 4 years worth of people are confident enough to start leaving the workforce. This is a good thing. Not a bad thing. And it's precisely counter to what you believe to be the case.

One in 2 recent college graduates can't even find a job. And yet you pretend that this is indicative of adequate economic growth? I don't think that you are an evil person or anything, I just think that you're out of touch.

// And yes, that's a liberal link to the huffington post.

That statistic doesn't disagree with my statistic, or my general point. You're now just throwing out the weird stats used to make shiat sound awful. Is it all sunshine and rainbows? No. Is it getting better? Yes.

That study looks at bachelors degrees, whereas the stat I was referencing looks at professional certs, Graduate degree holders and doctorates. These stats, put together, are indicative of a problem that has nothing to do with growth. We're light on middle-skill level jobs. Manufacturing, assembly, design... you know, precisely the kind of jobs Obama gets made fun of for trying to focus on.

But you know what, you're just doing your damnedest to paint the most dismal image of a recovering economy possible on election day. So I can only assume you're a shill.

"The recovery is anemic!""not according to all typically used metrics.""Is so! Look at this one specific metric! How can you be satisfied?"

maniacbastard:Does Nate use some kind of Monte Carlo method to process the poll info and arrive at his results?

Some Farker explained it perfectly about 2 days ago. It is neither rocket-science or magic. Just the application of sound statistical principles.

My summary which is not as thorough:1) weight and adjust polls based on house-bias and other factors such as historical performance and sample size2) calculate State probabilities of wins3) use a random generator function to produce likely voting scenarios and measure EV outcomes4) run 10,000 random scenarios (random numbers are weighted towards likelihood) count how may times each candidate wins.

Based on current predictions, Obama wins in about 9,200 simulations in 10,000.

Thunderpipes:Unemployment ticked back up to 7.9%. Wow, that is awesome. Oh, that includes the fact that 4-5% of the entire workforce dropped out. Home prices and the stock market are very slowly rising after a stark recession? Oh boy howdy, Obama is a Savior! Could have elected a monkey and done as well. You are here arguing that 7.9% unemployment, exploding deficit, drastically shrunk workforce is okay because home prices and the stock market have rebounded. Wow.

BeesNuts:Details are extraordinarily light on the poll inspector thing. Having voted in Philly, I find it hard to believe that the actual poll workers would kick somebody out for ... also being a poll worker. In fact, I *NEVER KNEW THE POLITICAL IDENTITY* of the poll inspectors I met (and spoke to on several occassions that year [it was my first election :D])

See, there's your problem. You live in Delaware. You only thought it was Philly.

Sucky thing is, 7% unemployment and trillion dollar deficits, 2% growth is the new America under Democrat rule, and you guys love it. I have a one year old, he will have to contend with 30-40 trillion dollars of US debt by the time he is in college.

Just too many lazy, stupid young people around, and they breed much faster than working people. Democrats give money to people in exchange for votes, get elected, and the cycle repeats. We are Greece within a decade, but much more heavily armed.

Odd. B/c if you look at the actual numbers since World War II, it's the republicans who have been fiscally profligate with their tax cuts. Democratic presidents generally try to pay for their programs. But you go on believing the stories you've been told rather than the actual facts.

Facts are Obama just added 6 trillion to the debt in 4 years, and the outlook means at least another 4 if he gets elected. Facts are we have terribly growth, terrible unemployment, entitlement spending is exploding, and people are dropping out of the work force.

math does not lie. In no way can anything about the economy be called good. And Republicans had nothing to do with the housing crisis which caused the recession, no matter how much you want it to. We are done, period. At a certain point, you just cannot recover. Interest payments alone on the debt are now 350 billion a year I believer. 4 more years of Bambam it will be at 500 billion. Will just go up from there. Can tax the rich all you want, won't make a dent and will just slow growth.

Fact that Obama is even in the race shows how far we have fallen as a country. Think about it, you tools are orgasmic to vote for a President who is responsible for the worst financial outlook for the country in your life. Its like you want to be kicked in the junk. Half of college grads can't get a decent job, and you still orgasm over Obama? Just nuts.

Because, by and large, democrats are just more trustworthy than republicans, that's why.

At least 70 Republican poll workers have been thrown out, sometimes physically from Pennsylvania polling stations by Democrats. Judge had to step in. This, this is what you guys are all about and it just sucks.

And you can show a link to this happening, outside of your fevered imagination?

Google it, several news sites have it up. Black Panthers are back too.

The question that nobody seemed to ask was "why were they thrown out?"

If they were electioneering and not poll watching, that's a no no.

As for the BPP, shall I call you a hypocrite for wanting to throw out poll watchers you disagree with? Or should I assume you are just a regular old racist who thinks "being black" is an intimidation tactic?

According to CNN just now, "all reports" so far say the only reason was that he was a black man and working for the GOP as a poll inspector. No campaigning, a certified inspector. Shout downs of Uncle Tom and violence have ensued. A judge ordered that all 12 wards that removed the GOP inspectors be reinstated and dispatched deputies at each site to insure compliance.

No harm I can see to the process in general, in fact the Black Panthers just caused panic and delay in areas that Obama should win 95% of the vote - so kind of dumb. Maybe they should drive out to the suburbs next time and cause this drama.

It seems you are supporting the removal of polling place inspectors? Can you elaborate? Why do you think any of this is okay?

Details are extraordinarily light on the poll inspector thing. Having voted in Philly, I find it hard to believe that the actual poll workers would kick somebody out for ... also being a poll worker. In fact, I *NEVER KNEW THE POLITICAL IDENTITY* of the poll inspectors I met (and spoke to on several occassions that year [it was my first election :D]) The story smells funny, and the fact that it's coming from the poison well of T ...

You must have missed this part where your own city legal team said "yeah, it happens all the time, totally normal" then?

Despite the high number of officials who were allegedly booted, the dispute itself is not uncommon for Philadelphia. Fred Voigt, legal counsel for the city commissioners, said these kinds of face-offs happen "with regularity" in the City of Brotherly Love.

"It happens all the time," Voigt said. He said court-appointed Republican officials typically show up on Election Day and end up squaring off against stand-in officials at the polling sites filling in the open seats. Part of the problem, he said, is that the Republican inspectors are appointed on relatively short notice, leading to a string of confrontations on Election Day.

I don't think it's a big deal, it's just a shame that there might have been some pushing and shoving. I'm glad the GOP workers stood their ground and refused to be intimidated. This hasn't suppressed votes, hasn't altered the election.

Oh and yes, I'm obviously a racist. I'm voting Romney so he can put black people back in the fields where they belong. Along with legalizing legitimate rape and banning abortions of course. That's what anyone like me who voted Obama in '08 but thinks he did a crappy job leading our country is, right? A racist?

Purdue_Pete:Oh and yes, I'm obviously a racist. I'm voting Romney so he can put black people back in the fields where they belong. Along with legalizing legitimate rape and banning abortions of course. That's what anyone like me who voted Obama in '08 but thinks he did a crappy job leading our country is, right? A racist?